Monday, September 15, 2008

This Is What It Was About

The Post has a really nice article this morning, with a good picture of Dana at the victory celebration. You fight the fight so hard sometimes, you forget what you're fighting for. Here it is:

To Allyson Robinson, it means accompanying her young children to public restrooms in Montgomery County without worrying that someone will call the police.

For Colleen Fay, it brings the hope that the next time she applies for a driver's license she won't be badgered about her previous life as a man.

And for Chloe Schwenke, it means other people like her will be able to enjoy the job security she has found in her international development work in the District.

With the decision by Maryland's highest court last week to block a referendum petition, Montgomery County's law banning discrimination against transgender people takes effect immediately.

The measure, passed by the County Council last year, prohibits discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. It was to take effect in February but was put on hold when some religious and conservative groups launched a petition drive.

The court's ruling was an important political and symbolic victory for gay and transgender rights advocates. Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill's main sponsor, and Equality Maryland, the group that led the legal challenge, hosted a celebration Friday night at Jackie's Restaurant in Silver Spring.

But in interviews after the court's decision, transgender people throughout the Washington region said Montgomery's new law would be most meaningful in making the mundane details of day-to-day life a little bit easier. And they hope that it spurs action in neighboring jurisdictions. Ruling Inspires New Hope For Transgender People

It shouldn't be necessary. You shouldn't have to pass a law to tell people to play fair. But you do, you have to. Transgender people get hassled and harassed more than anybody, it seems to me, just their presence on the street can upset people. Idiotic people roll down their windows and yell things, physical violence is a constant concern, this is a small community but one that is victimized by prejudice.

"So I can walk into the office, wear a skirt and not be quite so afraid," said Fay, a transgender woman who lives in Prince George's County. "The little tiny things in life that most of the rest of humanity take for granted, we look at and say, 'That could be a hurdle as tall as the Empire State Building.' "

Opponents of the law, including some parents and religious groups, gathered more than 25,000 signatures to put the measure to a vote. They worried that the law was written so broadly that it could allow a cross-dressing man, for instance, to gain access to locker rooms at health clubs. They also unsuccessfully tried to add exceptions to the law for hiring by religious institutions and schools. To opponents, the court's decision disenfranchised the thousands of people who signed petitions.

But for transgender women such as Robinson, the County Council's passage of the law was a key reason she chose to live in Montgomery when she moved to the area this year from Texas to take a job at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and transgender civil rights organization.

Before settling on a townhouse in Gaithersburg, Robinson and her family sought to rent an apartment. She worried, unnecessarily as it turned out, that the landlord would want to pull out of the lease upon meeting her. Until the law took effect this week, Robinson said, the landlord could have rejected her application because she is a transgender person.

In the past, Robinson has also worried about taking her four young children to public restrooms at restaurants, because she fears that someone will identify her as a transgender woman and call security.

"You find yourself on guard, and mentally and emotionally prepared for that," Robinson said. "You just never know. For many of us, this kind of thing we fear happens rarely; for others it happens constantly, and the fear of it is very real."

Generally in our county people are cool. The majority of people here don't want to discriminate, they don't want to be unfair, but we do have a few jerks. I think there are two things, there is out-and-out bigotry, as we see in our hard-core shower-nuts who want to discriminate even though they know better, and there is ignorance. I personally think that most of the people who went out with petitions were just ignorant, people who heard at church that there was going to be a law that let predators go into the ladies room and so they went out to make the world a better place. I don't think ignorance is much of an excuse, but maybe with some knowledge, some educating, those people can change their views.

Montgomery followed 13 states, the District and more than 100 other local jurisdictions in passing protections for transgender individuals. Based on clinical and surgical reports, advocacy groups say that as many as 2,000 transgender people live in Montgomery.

In court, the two sides argued technicalities over deadlines and the number of signatures needed to put the law to a vote. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling that had sided with the law's opponents.

Fay said she hoped the media attention to Montgomery's action -- and the court's decision -- would embolden her county to follow and raise awareness to help demystify transgender people.

"It's invisibility that leads to fears and the icky factor that makes some people react by saying, 'I don't want to deal with that,' " said Fay, arts editor for WAMU radio's Metro Connection, a show she helped launch as Peter Fay in 1995.

In December, when Fay moved back to Maryland from the District after many years, her old driver's license information identified her as male. Fay said she was hassled by a motor vehicle clerk, who refused to change the designation to female.

Schwenke, an ethicist who works in international development, said she was nervous about approaching her employer about her planned transition but relieved to find her fears unfounded. Her office is in Northwest Washington, so she was protected by the District's anti-discrimination law.

"It makes an enormous difference," Schwenke said of the protections. "I was concerned that people would feel that I'd somehow be less competent or less able."

But the protections did not extend to Diane Schroer, a transgender woman who is pursuing a sex discrimination case against the Library of Congress under the Civil Rights Act in U.S. District Court. Schroer's job offer was rescinded the day after she told her prospective employer that she was undergoing the medical transition to become a woman.

Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, said Schroer's case illustrates why legal protections are necessary. A federal judge is expected to rule in the case soon. "There are people who react in an unthinking way to transgender people," he said.

Yes, well put: an unthinking way. To me, that's what this whole battle is about, getting people to think.

Once again, congratulations to all those who fought so hard to get the law passed in the first place, to those who defended it so bravely. The good guys were geared up for a huge campaign if this went to referendum, luckily that wasn't necessary.

One last thing. This article is a perfect example. The media have been wonderful through all of this. All the newspapers, most of the TV channels -- they were offered a low-hanging fruit, they could easily have played up the dangers of perverted men using the ladies room, and only one of them took the bait. There is an honest news story to cover here, and they have covered it, they mentioned what the shower-nuts concerns were -- as this story does -- but didn't pretend that was the story. Accurate reporting throughout has made this accomplishment possible.

42 Comments:

Anonymous said...

"You shouldn't have to pass a law to tell people to play fair. But you do, you have to."

No, you don't. Even if you don't value individual liberty and the right to speech, thought, religion and association, the article made clear that every person who feared exclusion in MC was proven wrong.

"Transgender people get hassled and harassed more than anybody,"

Vague words. What does the guy mean when he says they hassled him at the DMV because he changed his gender on his driver license? That they made sure of the facts before just casually changing the license?

"it seems to me, just their presence on the street can upset people."

So what? It shouldn't be illegal to be upset.

"Idiotic people roll down their windows and yell things,"

So what? It happens to everyone at times.

Ignore it.

"physical violence is a constant concern,"

Physical violence was already against the law. It is illegal everywhere. That's not what 23-07 was about.

It's amazing how much denial there is from the right wing about this law and about the court decision. YOU LOST. Get over it, move on.

This law will provide a modicum of protection for people who otherwise would be defenseless against discrimination.

It doesn't stop you from continuing to be an ignorant hater, which as we can see from the McCain/Palin campaign, is pretty much what social conservatives are reduced to these days.

You can advocate for ignorance and hatred, you can practice ignorance and hatred, you just can't discriminate anymore on the basis of this particular ignorance and hatred. The idea that "freedom of association" allows you to practice discrimination on the basis of ignorance and hatred was decisively rejected by the Supreme Court over 40 years ago when the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965 were challenged. Good luck to CRG with that particular angle.

Doesn't it feel good to see your particular brand of ignorance and hatred lumped in with racial discrmination? It sure made me feel good. Have a nice day, you ignorant hater.

"Anonymous"You never quit, do you? You must have been a very difficult child. I bet you threw fits, screamed, and kicked on the floor of the department stores or grocery stores when you didn't get your candy bar. You are doing that now...so, as the expression goes: "The child is the father of the man". Please make an effort to move on with your life and accomplish something of great value to civilization instead of continuing with this weeping and wailing because you didn't get your way.RT

"The idea that "freedom of association" allows you to practice discrimination on the basis of ignorance and hatred was decisively rejected by the Supreme Court over 40 years ago when the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965 were challenged."

Blacks were victim of kidnapping and forced slavery which in cause and effect scenarios directly affected their social status. The descendants of their oppressors benefitted from this clearly illegal and barbaric activity and thus had an obligation to the victims of this violence.

Bias against blacks was based solely on physical characteristics as opposed to bias against gays which is based on desires and behaviors.

You don't think the Supreme Court could distinguish between these situations?

It's not illegal to say or think anything. It's illegal to discriminate in the areas covered by the law. It's not about speech, it's about ACTION. Do you actually read what you write, or do you just repeat what some right-wing Wurlitzer machine churns out?

"It violates my rights, it violates my rights." There is no right to discriminate, none. There is a right to speak and think what one wants, but if that speech or thought moves to the level of action, then it can be made illegal, either by law or by the Constitution.

Or do you think that your "freedom of association" includes the right to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and gays? You don't have that right, for a variety of reasons.

And don't give me this "I don't hate transgender people, I just don't want my rights violated" crap. It's funny how such tender concern for "rights" comes out when a legislature actually gives rights to persecuted minorities. Not so much, though, when we're talking about rights of those accused of crimes, or those who protest against war, or try to protect the environment.

But heaven help us if someone comes for your guns or your hate. Then you become like Patrick freakin' Henry, screaming about rights.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Of course, you're so busy spewing the latest talking points you have no idea what I'm talking about.

You don't think the Supreme Court could distinguish between these situations?

No, for the simple reason that your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. A legislature, state or federal, has the right to pass laws unless such laws violate the Constitution. Your argument is that this law violates the Constitution. I said earlier that this was BS, based on the civil rights laws upheld in the '60s. You say, but that law was different, because blacks are blacks regardless, but transgender people are icky (OK, OK, you said "bias against gays which is based on desires and behaviors." I just translated from the High Wingnut)

That's about as useful a legal argument as "but judge, that law was passed on a Tuesday, and today is a Monday, so neener, neener, neener."

Laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation also involve "desires and behaviors." Would you say that such laws are unconstitutional? Can you find one case, even one, of the Supreme Court that says this? The answer, of course, is no, you can't.

If you're going to throw around legal principles, at least have some f-ing clue what you're talking about first. You're blindfolded, staggering around in the dark, and you think you're some kind of genius. Ummm, no. Sorry.

A major talking point of anti-lgbt organizations is that discrimination against sexual minorities is legitimate because Gay, Lesbian and Transgender people aren't real: i.e., these are not real differences, but ephemeral and transitory preferences.

Everybody knows of course, that their own sexual orientation and gender identity are genuine and fixed (although without meeting people who are different, most people don't even think about these things, since they are so fundamental to our personalities and ways of looking at the world).

People who preach 'choice' in this instance are being seriously dishonest, or self-deceptive.

The other major talking points of the anti-lgbt individuals and groups are 1)destruction of families and thus society; 2)assault on children; 3)spread of disease; and 4)danger to self.

Have we not seen all of this in other cases of prejudice? All this ends of increasing fear and ignorance. It must be combatted with honesty and education by right-minded and hearted people.

For some reason, Our Anonymous Troll repeats these old, discredited arguments here; I can't figure out whom he is trying to convince. The only thing I can assume is that he does it because he knows it's annoying, or is deliberately trying to goad people. Poor baby.

A major talking point of anti-lgbt organizations is that discrimination against sexual minorities is legitimate because Gay, Lesbian and Transgender people aren't real: i.e., these are not real differences, but ephemeral and transitory preferences.

Everybody knows of course, that their own sexual orientation and gender identity are genuine and fixed (although without meeting people who are different, most people don't even think about these things, since they are so fundamental to our personalities and ways of looking at the world).

People who preach 'choice' in this instance are being seriously dishonest, or self-deceptive.

The other major talking points of the anti-lgbt individuals and groups are 1)destruction of families and thus society; 2)assault on children; 3)spread of disease; and 4)danger to self.

Have we not seen all of this in other cases of prejudice? All this ends of increasing fear and ignorance. It must be combatted with honesty and education by right-minded and hearted people.

For some reason, Our Anonymous Troll repeats these old, discredited arguments here; I can't figure out whom he is trying to convince. The only thing I can assume is that he does it because he knows it's annoying, or is deliberately trying to goad people. Poor baby.

Do you have any idea what "association" means? Or are you all twisted up in knots with this word as you were with "facilities"?

You are free to associate with whomever you choose. I, personally, have no desire to associate with you, and will not knowingly waste my time doing so. You have the same right.

But if you own a business you have no right to discriminate against me because of who I am.

It's funny, becuase while you say we haven't changed any hearts and minds, we indeed have. I have noticed a remarkable increase in awareness and understanding since you started your campaign. You awakened people who had never given sex and gender a thought, and forced them to think about it.You have done us all a favor.

Business associates are associates and people have the right to choose them.

So if you own a business and you don't want to work with black people, you can fire the ones who work for you and refuse to hire any other black people? Or Jews? Or Irish? Or women? Or Hispanics? Or gays?

If that's your view, I suspect that you either have been sued or are about to be, because for at least 40 years, your view of the law has been WRONG. You cannot use the right of free association to defeat any non-discrimination law, your mumblings and rantings notwithstanding.

And the law doesn't distinguish conceptually between business associations and personal ones -- although it often gives higher value to claims related to personal associations rather than business ones. Not that you'd have a clue in any event.

Like CRG, you really could do with some good legal advice. Instead of spending your time here annoying everyone, go get some and come back when you have something useful to say. Or just admit, as I pointed out earlier, that you're an ignorant hater. And you still have the right to be ignorant and to hate, this law notwithstanding. You just can't discriminate in employment, housing, accommodations, and the like.

Islip:I would recommend that you read posts here carefully before you make more asinine comments about them! ("Anonymous said... Business associates are associates and people have the right to choose them.")And..."Anonymous" - if you are in the business (often with accompanying tax benefits) of serving the public you may not discriminate against people, merely because you don't like them. You may "associate" with whomever you please...but if you charge money for your services and your business is open to the public you may not discriminate. It's really a quite simple concept to understand.Tired of CRG trollers.

Silly anonymous thinks I'm talking to him, and even more erroneously thinks I'm talking about the recently enacted Trans-inclusive non-discrimination law in MoCo.

I am doing neither.

Dear friends,

I think that CRG et al have moved beyond opposition to 23-07, and are launching an all out smear campaign against trans people in particular, and sexual minorities specifically. Their website is no longer about opposition to the law, but about making people fear transgender folk. Their 'street' (i.e. Giant parking lot) efforts are shrill fear-mongering.

Many, many kudos to Dana, Cynthia, Tish and others (whom am I leaving out?) for having the courage to speak publicly and to live publically, thus by their presence and efforts educating people. I know PFLAG has it's advertising campaign (True Colors? or is that Cindy Lauper) educating people about Gay and Lesbian members of the community.

It takes concerted, everyday, ongoin, boring action by all right-minded people to inform our communnity about us. Getting 23-07 approved is just the first step in a long march, as shown by CRG's hate-filled and alarming actions. They've upped the ante by trying to increase public hostility to trans members of our community.

If you want to do that kind of stuff, you take a chance that others won't want to have anything to do with you.

Who is the government to say otherwise?

"if you are in the business (often with accompanying tax benefits) of serving the public you may not discriminate against people, merely because you don't like them."

Number one, running a business and supporting yourself is not something to apologize for. You don't owe the government anything for the "privilege".

Second, tax benefits aren't a gift from the government. Businesses are given deductions so they can invest and raise more tax revenue by generating more income.

Finally, plenty of types of discrimination are perfectly legal. You are free to discriminate against people "merely because you don't like them" as long as the reason is one of the protected categories like dressing in girls' clothes when you're a guy.

Why should that category of bizarreness be protected when most others aren't?

Behavior and feelings? Oh, boy, Anon, you're living in such an outdated world. Keep making that argument -- it has no traction in this country any longer, except for those who think global warming is caused by "God hugging us closer."

Barack Obama pulled in $66 million last month, smashing his previous fundraising record amid clear signs that Sarah Palin has mobilised many grassroots Democrats against her as much as she has energised the Republican Party.

Mr Obama's fundraising total for August beat his monthly record of $55 million (£31 million) and was the highest in US presidential history. It came with the addition of 500,000 donors, many of whom signed on to the campaign after the extraordinary entry of Mrs Palin into the race as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

GOLDEN, Colo. (Sept. 15) - "Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Monday she would concentrate on energy, government reform and helping families with special needs children if the GOP wins the White House this fall, and drew cheers when she said, "too often government is the problem" rather than the solution."

Robert, thank you for including me with Dana and Cynthia. The truth that I am living openly is that I have a transgender sister whom I cherish. I am proud of her. My kids love her. (She is a very cool aunt. How many guys have an aunt with a room full of auto racing trophies?)

It is sadly ironic that Theresa said (very early in the petition drive) that she doesn't want to have to think about transgender people. If she would allow herself to include transgender people among her friends, she would find that she would indeed stop thinking about transgender people. All of her transgender friends would quickly become just people.

I believe that that is the CRW's greatest fear - when we do "associate" with transgender people we lose our perception of difference. We stop thinking that we can always "spot" a transgender person. We stop caring about what people "used to be." Then the CRW will not be able to convince us to project our fears onto transgender people.

If you want to do that kind of stuff, you take a chance that others won't want to have anything to do with you.

Who is the government to say otherwise?...........

Why should that category of bizarreness be protected when most others aren't? It's unconstitutional.

It's not equal protection under the law!

Does that exclamation point at the end make your legal argument stronger? Like, hey, I really feel pretty pissed off about this, so there!

OK, let's play. How is it not "equal protection under the law" to pass an anti-discrimination law protecting gender identity? Who is singled out for disparate treatment under this law? Ignoramuses? Haters? And just in case you want to go there, it's not targeted at religious people, because it doesn't mention religion and there are plenty of religious organizations who welcome this law.

Unless the class of people being singled out for different treatment under the law is a protected class (apparently, you heard a lawyer say that once, even though you're using it wrong), the review of the law for equal protection purposes is going to be what's called "rational basis" scrutiny. Putting it into small words for you ignorant haters, that means that the law will be upheld unless there is no "rational basis" for the legislature to have passed it.

Well, there was plenty of rational basis. There were statistics talking about how transgender people are discriminated against in housing, in employment, in accommodations and in other ways. This was a classic case of a problem crying out for a solution.

You don't agree. Fine, you have the right to disagree, even if your disagreement comes down to "those people make me feel icky." But the fact that you disagree does not, in any way, shape or form give you a constitutional right to challenge this law in court on the basis of equal protection. Your remedy, such as it is, is to convince the Council to revoke the law, or to vote out those who passed the law (which in this case would be THE ENTIRE COUNCIL).

You know nothing about law, clearly. If you want to pursue your clearly worthless claims, bring them in court, where they will be laughed at, but stop wasting everyone's time here with inane references to principles you just don't understand.

Odd thing happened to me. I posted an ad for tutoring on Craigslist, and today I received an email referring me to my own ad. The email came from 'regina@pfox.org' Is this Regina telling me that she recognizes me? Is she seeking tutoring? Is it someone pretending to be Regina? A great puzzle.

It does remind us that people can recognize by much of what we put online.

andrea- not anonI see on Washingtopost.com comments some of the same bs lies anon and the showernuts spread- but they use codenames there as well. I also like that the people collecting signatures are ashamed of having their photos published. I can't understand the shame- they should be proud of their bigotry and lies- like Ruth and Michele and Theresa.

Gee, anon - so sorry you missed the festivities but you might have caught the Gay if you attended.

Trading ideas. Talking about what's going to happen. Looking at the losers and winners on a national scale. Thinking about whose cause will be set back for a generation. Considering which candidates made what stupid errors.

And Rasmussen also has Virginia moving from a McCain lead to a tie. And Ohio is down from a five point lead to two.

You are cherry-picking the polls that support what you want to say. Given that you and everyone else have been claiming that McCain is on a roll, the fact that many polls are moving towards Obama cannot be good news for McCain. The bounce is over.

And who cares whether the poll was for a TV station. SUSA is a reputable pollster, just as much as Rasmussen or Gallup. Take the blinders off.

Sybil said... “"black people? Or Jews? Or Irish? Or women? Or Hispanics? Or gays?"

Six types of people there. Do you notice any one that stands out?

That's right- only one is based on behavior and feelings.”

Now now Sybil, you know perfectly well that religion -- also based on “behavior and feelings” -- is protected under that same clause.

Your using the same government protection of your “behavior and FEELINGS,” to deny other citizens the very protections that you enjoy, for the EXACT same reasons.

In other words, your “legal” argument basically comes down to the idea that your “feelings” are more worthy of protection than what you perceive to be the “feelings” of others -- even though your “feelings” (about God), ARE EVEN LESS PROVABLE than our “feelings” of gender identity.

It’s completely unfair, and you know it. (unless of course, you want to play the ‘tyranny of the majority’ card). If you really feel that way, play it, just don’t be coy about it, because that just makes it extra extra unfair. But I’m convinced that that’s what you truly want, that “extra EXTRA unfairness.”

Face it. If not with us, at least to yourself; you enjoy hating GLBT people.

Tish has it perfectly right:

“I believe that that is the CRW's greatest fear - when we do "associate" with transgender people we lose our perception of difference. We stop thinking that we can always "spot" a transgender person. We stop caring about what people "used to be." Then the CRW will not be able to convince us to project our fears onto transgender people.”

And to add, I think they are afraid of “associating” with GLBT people, specifically because they know they WILL lose their fear of us.

It almost makes sense though, if supremacy is your ‘god,’ and superiority is what you ‘worship,’ then technically, they actually would feel as though our equal protection would be an infringement on their so-called religious freedom. Our supposed “sexual deviance” would then be as equally protected as what they cherish and hold most dear - pride in the name of Jesus.

"With approximately 50 days to go, the convention bounces have produced these changes to the Electoral College Count

Obama 233McCain 227"

You're looking at a source that has conceded its bias, Chris Matthews show on MSNBC.

Problem is they leave Ohio, Michigan and Nevada as toss-ups when all three are now in McCain's column. They also leave out Virginia which appears to be a tie but I'm leery of that and New Hampshire which seems solidly Obama.

Andrea- not anonI do love politics- been hitting the pavement for my party for 40 years but I have other blogs and WAPO comments for that discussion.

Once more-the case is closed although I am sure that the non-adjustable(thanks, Tish) showerheads will find some other way to support bigotry. And once more- disenfranchisement is a lie and an insult to those who have been and are truly disenfranchised here in the US and around the world.

General Petraeus, who will be the new National Security Adviser in the McCain administration left command of the Iraq effort today with polls showing 83% of Americans think he did an excellent or good job.